TOTAL LUMBAR DISC ARTHROPLASTY
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2016.1.59-66
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of M6-L artificial disc in lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).
Material and Methods. A total of 109 patients with diagnosed lumbar DDD and spinal stenosis were operated on after 6 months of unsuccessful conservative treatment in 2011-2015. All patients underwent M6-L artificial lumbar disc implantation. Average follow-up period was 1.5 years (range: 4 months to 6 years). Patient satisfaction after treatment, regression of pain score, increase in activities of daily living, as well as radiographic parameters (recovery of intervertebral space height, mobility in the operated segment), and frequency of complications, reoperations and revision surgeries were evaluated.
Results. Good and excellent clinical outcomes were revealed in most of patients. The average VAS score of back and leg pain regression was 27 mm, improvement in daily activity - 24.3 points on ODI, increase in the disc space height - 7.6 mm, and mobility in the operated segment - 8.5°. Serious complications were not detected, spontaneous fusion at the operated level was noted in 2.0 % of cases, revision surgery due to implant migration (implant removal and ALIF with cage) was required in 0.9 % of cases.
Conclusion. Intervertebral disc arthroplasty with M6-L is a safe and highly effective procedure that maintains mobility in the operated segment and prevents adjacent disc degeneration.
About the Authors
Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan Aleksandrovich Kruglov
District Military Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Rinat Raviljevich Abdrakhmanov
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Seleznev
District Military Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr Evgenyevich Mader
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Доценко В.В., Загородний Н.В. Спондилолистез, передние малотравматичные операции. М., 2005.
2. Круглов И.А., Гизатуллин Ш.Х., Селезнев А.С., Вовкогон В.Б., Сычев В.А. Опыт хирургического лечения грыж межпозвонковых дисков поясничного отдела позвоночника // Труды Главного военного клинического госпиталя им. академика Н.Н. Бурденко: Сб. науч. статей. Вып. 9. Ч. 1. М., 2012.
3. Назаренко Г.И., Героева И.Б., Черкашов А.М., Рухманов А.А. Вертеброгенная боль в пояснице. Технология диагностики и лечения. М., 2008.
4. Чертков А.К. Эндопротезирование поясничных дисков в нейрохирургии. М., 2011.
5. Artificial discs for lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease - update: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006;6:1-98.
6. Artificial Lumbar Disc Replacement (update), January 2006. Horizon Scanning Report. Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government, 2006.
7. Benini A. Indications for single-segment intervertebral protesis implantation. Neuroradiol J. 1999;12(1 Suppl):171-173. DOI: 10.1177/19714009990120S124.
8. Delamarter RB, Fribourg DM, Kanim LE, Bae H. ProDisc artificial total lumbar disc replacement: introduction and early results from the United States clinical trial. Spine. 2003;28:S167-S175.
9. Geisler FH. Lumbar Spinal Arthroplasty: Clinical Experience, Recent Advances in Arthroplasty. In: Fokter S, ed, Recent Advances in Arthroplasty. In Tech, 2004. URL: http://www.intechopen.com/books/recent-advances-in-arthroplasty/lumbar-spinal-arthroplastyclinical-experience.
10. Gelenk-Klinik. Spinal Disc Replacement: supporting pain free mobility through next generation Spinal Prosthesis: Next generation Spinal Disc Replacement using the dynamic M6 spinal disc prosthesis. In: Joint Surgeons in Germany: Electronic resource. Germany, 2012. URL: http://www.joint-surgeon.com/orthopedic-service/spine-surgery/artificial-spinal-disc-replacement/lumbar-disc-replacement.html.
11. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12-20.
12. Link HD. History, design and biomechanics of the LINK SB Charite artificial disc. Eur Spine J. 2002;11 Suppl 2:S98-S105. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-002-0475-x.
13. Sakalkale DP, Bhagia SA, Slipman CW. A historical review and current perspective on the intervertebral disc prosthesis. Pain Physician. 2003;6:195-198.
14. Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD, Kang HS, Choi WC, Jung B, Choi G, Lee S, Lee HY. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine. 2007;32:1012-1018. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000260795.57798.a0.
15. Warachit P. Results of Charite artificial lumbar disc replasment. experience in 43 Thais. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91:1212-1217.
Review
For citations:
Abakirov M.D., Kruglov I.A., Abdrakhmanov R.R., Seleznev A.S., Mader A.E. TOTAL LUMBAR DISC ARTHROPLASTY. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2016;13(1):59-66. https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2016.1.59-66
Email this article 